He's not going to be happy relegated to being a setup man.

This is an opportunity for the Mets to demonstrate that the biggest outs aren't always in the 9th. Hopefully they can sell Putz on the idea that serving a "fireman" role is sexier than just being a closer.

Not a chance he believes that, even though it's sometimes true. He wants to close.

The whole "only closers can pitch the ninth inning" thing is bad enough, but now we're supposed to believe that closers can't not close? Break me a ####### give.

He gets an extra bit of adrenaline going when he’s pitching the ninth inning.

How about getting an extra bit of adrenaline going when doing your f#*&ing; job?... which is getting people out, no matter when that happens.

now we're supposed to believe that closers can't not close? Break me a ####### give.

I don't dismiss it out of hand. Having the right attitude is hardly irrelevant to good performance; it's part of why I think Heilman didn't do well last year (though only part), and part of why I was skeptical he would recover while being so negative about pitching in relief next season. And a negative attitude from an important player can be a bad thing in a clubhouse, too.

But here's the thing about Putz. A big part of the reason a relief pitcher wants to close is the impact on his contract. And Putz already has a contract for 2009 that wasn't going to be affected whether he closes or set up, and he has a contract for 2010 that will either pay him like a closer if the Mets pick up his option (even if they use him as a set-up man), or it will make him a free agent and he'll be able to go close (and get paid to do so). Or, alternatively, the Mets could pick up the option and trade him to a team that needs a closer. Same story: if that happens, he'll be getting his saves, and paid accordingly.

IOW, there is no scenario under which he pitches well in 2009 and doesn't get paid like a closer in 2010. Conversely, not pitching well would inevitably cost him a lot of money in 2010, and almost certainly beyond. I tend to think that simple fact of incentives will keep him happy (or effectively so) in the role for a year.

How about getting an extra bit of adrenaline going when doing your f#*&ing;job?... which is getting people out, no matter when that happens.

You know, that's easy to say, but let's be honest. Big, late-game situations are different. Late-season situations are different. A player can get into a mindset where he uses that to get him going.

And let's also remember that these guys are professionals. How they are used affects their careers and how much they're going to get paid. In the long term, if Putz can't and doesn't see how he can get back to the role that gets him the dollars he can make as a closer, he's going to be unhappy. And you know what? You would be too.

# 4 adequately expresses my feelings....all i have to add is: really?

How about getting an extra bit of adrenaline going when doing your f#*&ing;job?... which is getting people out, no matter when that happens.

You sometimes hear/see the argument made that a closer shouldn't be brought into a non-save situation because of the "adrenaline" issue, right? Or because he just won't "focus" as well when it's not a tight game? Or whatever.

Anyway, this was certainly true (and became very much the CW, in fact) about Billy Wagner in 2007, when he had the following splits in save v. non-save situations:

save situation: .186/.248/.303
non-save: .255/.323/.364

Pretty marked difference, certainly.

Well, in 2008:

save situation: .205/.234/.333
non-save: .122/.213/.146

Oops. And for his career, when we actually have meaningful data instead of a few innings:

save situation (453 G, 1867 PAs): .197/.263/.313
non-save (312 G, 1402 PAs): .179/.265/.281

Maybe adrenaline's not all it's cracked up to be, or maybe the pitcher's adrenaline is balanced out by the hitter's?

The closers need to close mentality is self-fulfilling prophecy. What Sam says about money is right. If you're a closer and pile up saves you get a lot of money. If you're an ace setup man who never moves into the closer role, you don't. If teams think saves aren't important or an adequate measure of relief pitcher performance they'll have to put their money where their mouth is and stopping paying according to saves.

Putz likely thinks being a closer is important because his bosses and peers, throughout his career, have told him so. The opinion and respect of your bosses and peers is a real, tangible thing and can't be simply waived away. The "problem" of overvaluing saves is not the fault of relief pitchers.

I'm surprised Stottlemyre didn't argue that Putz will succeed in New York, provided he stops striking out so many hitters.

Putz was a starter for 3 years in the minors, a middle reliever for 3 years in the majors and minors and a closer for the past three years. This isn't Billy Wagner who has been a closer forever. Putz can adapt.

How about getting an extra bit of adrenaline going when doing your f#*&ing;job?... which is getting people out, no matter when that happens.

Also worth noting that Putz himself hasn't said anything about this, it is all someone else's opinions. Let's not put words in his mouth.

Also worth noting that Putz himself hasn't said anything about this, it is all someone else's opinions. Let's not put words in his mouth.

Wow, I don't think I've ever been quoted this many times. Nolan, you're right. I was responding angrily to Mel's implication that he couldn't or shouldn't be able to be ready in a set-up role. I think Putz has done whatever is necessary to succeed at the big-league level, so I see him being fine here. Sam, you're absolutely right about the money thing. I can't really argue about his earning potential as a closer vs setup.

I do, however, take extreme offense at the idea that a closer is allowed to pitch like crap in a non-save situation, just because it is. Every pitcher is required to be a professional when he enters the game, and that means focusing to your maiximum ability. Even the lowest-rung, our-starter-got-blow'd-up-in-the-2nd-so-we-need-some-innings long-reliever is expected to do what he needs to hold his team in it.

I don't have any problem with players wanting to be closers because they can get paid more, even if we disagree with the valuation. I just don't accept that any player gets a pass for shoddy focus while in the game. We wouldn't let that slide for any other type of player (well, maybe Adam Dunn or Milton Bradley).

I don't dismiss it out of hand. Having the right attitude is hardly irrelevant to good performance;

The right attitude does not contain "I want to do what I want" nor especially "I am so concerned with what I want that not getting it will distract me to the point that it affects my pitching".

Caveat that Putz didn't say this, of course.

Also worth noting that Putz himself hasn't said anything about this, it is all someone else's opinions. Let's not put words in his mouth.

His agent did before the trade, though:

"He's one of the top five or 10 closers in the game," Landis said earlier Wednesday. "No, he would not want to be a setup man."

I dunno what to tell ya. Yes, you want everyone on your team to be happy, so they can play their best. No, you can't grant a player's wishes if it's incompatible with having the best chance to win. (For that matter, even if the team would win more if the player got his way, you still don't want players second-guessing the manager, just in general.) Keeping everyone happy and managing the team in a way that maximizes the chance to win are sometimes incompatible, and it's the job of the manager and the other front office people to reconcile them. So this is just another example of that larger principle, ultimately. But at least to me, it's an especially frustrating one, because I don't feel the bullpen "roles" intrinsically differ from each other nearly as much as baseball has come to believe.

His agent did before the trade, though:

"He's one of the top five or 10 closers in the game," Landis said earlier Wednesday. "No, he would not want to be a setup man."

Well, then. It seems I'm wrong, at least partly. Unless Putz comes out and says it himself, it is possible [even likely] that this is simply an agent doing for his client what he supposed to be doing. I read the linked article and there's really nothing from Putz himself, although his agent, and the writer, seem positive that J.J.'s unhappy. Guess we'll see if he says anything to the NY media.

We don't trust anything agents say when they claim to be accurately representing the realm of possible teams who are interested in their clients....why are we trusting this agent to accurately reflect Putz's brainwaves?

The agent's job is to make Putz, and thereby himself, more money. That quote was from before the trade, at a time when the idea of Putz being traded to a place where he wouldn't be the closer was still only a theoretical possibility. The agent doesn't want that to happen, because continuing to be a closer is lucrative for them both. So he says "JJ would not be happy being a setup man", to try to make teams wary of turning Putz into a setup man.

But that gambit failed. I don't anticipate any actual friction now. But we shall see.

Well, then. It seems I'm wrong, at least partly. Unless Putz comes out and says it himself, it is possible [even likely] that this is simply an agent doing for his client what he supposed to be doing. I read the linked article and there's really nothing from Putz himself, although his agent, and the writer, seem positive that J.J.'s unhappy.

In some of the articles that talked about the agent's quote, Omar was quoted as having talked to Putz after the trade and characterized him as happy and excited about the deal. And of course, he knew full well that the Mets had already signed K-Rod. So who the hell knows for sure? When I read it all, my take was that Putz was probably mostly happy to be leaving a rebuilding situation with the Mariners and going to a contender.

And as I said, I don't think the money issue is going to make him (or his agent on his behalf) unhappy. They know he is going to make exactly the same $$$ the next two years (including closer-level money in 2010) one way or the other. After that, of course, he hits free agency, so he'll be able to control his fate, and thus he probably isn't as concerned about his role in the short term (and the impact it might have on his wallet) as he might otherwise be. The key is to pitch well. If he does, somebody will want him to close for them, and he'll get his value as a closer in 2011, whether it's with the Mets or not.

My prediction: he pitches well in 2009. The Mets pick up the option for 2010, but realize he's a goner after that because he'll want a long-term deal at closer prices starting in 2011. So they can either keep him for that second year and then get draft picks (but will a set-up guy be Type A???), or they trade him to a team that wants a one-year rental on a quality closer -- and Putz on those terms will be a very attractive and valuable commodity about this time next year. Either two years of Putz, or one year of Putz, plus what the Mets recoup for him in trade, has every chance to be worth more than what they gave up for him.

The key is to pitch well. If he does, somebody will want him to close for them, and he'll get his value as a closer in 2011, whether it's with the Mets or not.

But the standard for "pitching well" is very different for a closer. Francisco Cordero signed a $46M contract last not because he consistently threw 70 innings with an ERA somewhere around 3 but because he collected 152 saves in the prior 4 years. (Yes, the Reds almost certainly overpaid, but it's still clear why they overpaid.)

If Putz can rebound and pitch at an elite level (say 2.5 ERA or below), I agree that there will be little or no long-term impact on his salary. But if Putz posts a 3.3 ERA as a setup man, I think he'll be perceived as having two decent but not great seasons (and rightly so, assuming his ERA reflects his performance) and will take a greater hit on the FA market than he would if he collected 35 saves a year while pitching at exactly the same level.

Some commenter on USSM made a very germane point, saying (paraphrased) that ex-GM Bill Bavasi would not have made the trade in a million years. Not because Bavasi can't handle three-team trades, but because he took his player-friendly reputation very seriously.

That is, Bavasi would never have marooned Putz into an obvious setup-man situation on some other team, where Putz would risk tanking future earning potential on the FA market. It wouldn't be fair to him. Bavasi would have tried to find a team that needed a closer, then worked out a Putz deal for whatever prospects that team had.

Crazy way to run a ballclub, I know.

I'm surprised Stottlemyre didn't argue that Putz will succeed in New York, provided he stops striking out so many hitters.

You said it Howard. Stottlemyre destroyed Dwight Gooden's career more than cocaine.

You said it Howard. Stottlemyre destroyed Dwight Gooden's career more than cocaine.

I always thought that it was the fact that Gooden's shoulder turned to string cheese in the middle of 1987.

But the standard for "pitching well" is very different for a closer. Francisco Cordero signed a $46M contract last not because he consistently threw 70 innings with an ERA somewhere around 3 but because he collected 152 saves in the prior 4 years.

And also because he was awesome for the first half of 2007. He carried an ERA well below 1 for the first 2+ months of the season, and even though he ended up right around 3, as usual, it looks better to do it that way. Cordero also strikes out a bunch of guys, and thus is overpowering when he's on, whereas someone like, say, David Weathers, doesn't appear overpowering even when he's similarly effective.

I don't think this is much of an issue even if Putz is unhappy in that role. All Minaya has to do is tell Putz to pitch well and that he'll move him in the offseason to a team that needs a closer. If Putz pitches well in 2009 and then does well as a closer in 2010 somewhere other than New York, he'll get closer money.

All Minaya has to do is tell Putz to pitch well and that he'll move him in the offseason to a team that needs a closer. If Putz pitches well in 2009 and then does well as a closer in 2010 somewhere other than New York, he'll get closer money.

If things go as we all hope they will in 2009, I'd like to think Omar would do that only if he has a strong alternative available to replace Putz in that set-up role in 2010. Let's say the Mets have what they are trying to establish: a reliable, very effective late-game pen next season with Putz and K-Rod both living up to expectations (career norms, let's say) in their respective roles. And, let's also say (as long as I'm waxing optimistic here) that it is part of a pretty successful Mets' season that includes a post-season run.

We can say two things about that. First, justified or not, the credit that will be given to the bullpen upgrade for the success will be enormous. The resulting pressure on Omar to keep the K-Rod/Putz tandem intact for 2010 will be equally enormous, even if it does mean paying two closers for a year. So if Omar makes a promise to Putz, he better factor in that the price of keeping it might just include getting pilloried in the press, because it WILL be portrayed as:

Mets Too Cheap to Keep Super Pen Together

Second, forget perceptions. I hope Omar doesn't actually put himself in a position where he makes promises to a player and thus loses flexibility and leverage in deciding what is the best thing to do when next off-season actually rolls around. If trading Putz a year from now is in the Mets' best interest, great -- I'm thrilled that might make him happy and give him the chance to make closer money in his next contract. But that last part is just a bonus. Trade him or keep him to help the 2010 (and beyond) Mets. Not to help J.J. Putz.

If the 2009 bullpen is as good as we hope, I could see Minaya saying to Putz something like "we're going to give you closer money to be our setup guy, and acknowledge with your paycheck that we view you as no less valuable as our 8th inning guy" and that being enough.

Especially if that bullpen is viewed publicly as a difference-maker. There's got to be some way to sell to Putz that he's not being slighted by not closing if the team honestly believes that he's arguably the best 8th inning guy in the game and they are smart about it.

Say that after the 2009 season, the Mets suggest tearing up the 2010 part of the deal and signing Putz to something like $33M/3 or $42/4. If the Mets put that offer on the table, nobody will say he left because the Mets were cheap.

It's going to take the right combination of creativity on the part of the GM and open-mindedness on the part of the player. Maybe Minaya and Putz are the magic combination?